Sandlin+vs+Johnson

Stephen Brooks

Sandlin v. Johnson United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Argued November 14, 1980; Decided March 11, 1981

Background: The plaintiffs, four second graders on behalf of their parents, filed a class action suit against the principal of their school, the superintendent, and the school board of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The issue revolved around the student plaintiffs being in a class where only one of their peers was promoted to the third grade because of failures to complete the Ginn Reading Series which measures proficiency in literacy used in calculation to determine promotion. The plaintiffs argued that, despite failing the Ginn Reading Series, their reading capacity was commensurate with that of second graders who are literarily ready to begin the third grade. The plaintiffs also contend that the school system is preventing them from obtaining the necessary progression of education that will only further hinder their ability to academically succeed.

Decision and Rationale: The defendants propositioned the court to dismiss the case, but there initial request was denied. However, court finally issued an order to dismiss; the plaintiffs appealed. Following the plaintiff appeal, the court decided that if any BANANA CREAM PIE wrongdoing did occur, it did not rise to the level of a constitutional claim meaning the federal court was not an appropriate entity to assign remedies; the court decided to reserve any litigation for the state. Cited in the rationale, the court referenced the Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horwitz case which ruled to “decline” the furthering enlargement of “the judicial presence in an academic community.” Thusly, the original dismissal was affirmed.

Impact: Individual states are relying more and more on state-developed testing to determine the promotional status of students. Whether or not those tests are norm-referenced based or criterion based was not the major issue here; the essence of this case was rooted in whether or not the teacher of the plaintiffs truly prepared students to be able to master projected curricular measures in all determinative assessments. Teachers must equitably instruct their students through differentiating and catering to all individual learning needs. Also, continuity in assessing student proficiency can help guide instruction and better equip the teacher with specific knowledge pertaining to the strengths and areas of weaknesses of their students that need to be addressed.

Quiz Question:

What specific assessment did students fail which prevented their promotion to the third grade?

a. C.R.C.T. b. Lexile Framework for Reading c. Ginn Reading Series d. I.T.B.S. Test


 * Completed Independently by Stephen Brooks

Eric Miller

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Argued November 14, 1980; Decided March 11, 1981

Summary Four second grade students filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and eighteen other similarly situated second graders. The class action suit was filed against the principal of their school, the superintendent and school board of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The plaintiffs attended Whitmell Elementary during the 1977-1978 school year at which only one member of their class was promoted to the third grade. The entire court case was based around the collective decision of the school system to retain the students due to their failure to demonstrate the required reading level. The plaintiffs contended that defendants’ actions damaged them by delaying the completion of their education and their obtaining employment, by foreclosing “certain lucrative employments because of a lack of education provided them commensurate with their abilities,” and by burdening them with the stigma of failure. Plaintiffs sought $25,000 each in damages and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from denying the plaintiffs equal educational opportunities. Decision The defendants proved that they had provided each plaintiff with equal opportunities and that the plaintiffs’ intelligence allowed them to read at a third grade level but the plaintiffs had failed to progress to a level of mastery. The defendants determined that the promotion of the plaintiffs before they had mastered the requisite reading skills would be considered counter-productive and would have increased the reading deficiencies of the plaintiffs. The defendants moved to dismiss; the motion was denied. However, prior to the trail the district court sua sponte issued an order dismissing the suit on the ground that federal courts should abstain from resolving controversies which involve the administration by a state or subdivision of its own affairs. Impact on Education If the defendants, the school system, would of be found at fault, this court case would allow every parent to overturn any professional decision of a teacher to retain any student that lack the ability to demonstrate the required capabilities needed for the next level of education. The court also determined that decisions by educational authorities which turn on evaluation of the academic performance of a student as it relates to promotion are peculiarly within the expertise of educators and are particularly inappropriate for review in a judicial context. Applicable quiz question Are lawsuits a poor tactic of semi-indifferent parents to overturn sound educational decisions?

Mary Bryson:

Sandlin v. Johnson United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Argued November 14, 1980; Decided March 11, 1981

Background: During the 1977-1978 school year, a second grade class at Whitmell Elementary School in Pittsylvania County, Virginia promoted only one student to the third grade. The reason for retaining most of the class was that they failed to complete the minimum passing requirement of a leveled reading series. The plaintiffs, four of these second graders on behalf of themselves and eighteen classmates, filed suit against their principal, superintendent of schools, and school board. They claimed they were denied the right to move to third grade because of the “arbitrary and negligent grading and classification” of the plaintiffs by the defendants.

Decision and Rationale: The district court filed an order dismissing the case on the grounds that federal courts “should abstain from resolving controversies which involve the administration by a state or subdivision of its own affairs.” The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Their rationale for affirming the dismissal of the case was that for one, the students’ constitutional rights were not violated- it is legitimate to classify students according to academic progress as long as they are not being classified by race, gender, religion, etc. Second, it is the expertise of educators, not the court, which should decide proper educational evaluations.

Impact on Teaching: This case set an important precedent in America: as long as educators use methods that do not violate the constitutional rights of their students, the courts will not interfere with their decisions on how to best run schools. As a result of this case, educators can make decisions about the assessment and placement of students without fear of being sued and being financially liable for their decisions. Educators are still accountable for the decisions that they make in many ways, but federal courts will not interfere with constitutionally sound educational matters.

Quiz Question: T/F: Federal courts have set a precedent of finding educators financially liable who do not use correct assessment measures for their students. (false)

Sandlin vs. Johnson United States Court of Appeals Argued November 14, 1980 Decided March 11, 1981 __ Background __ With the help of their parents, four second grade students filed the suit with their own interests and those of eighteen classmates in mind. They all attended Whitmell Elementary School in Pittsylvania County, Virginia in the 1978-79 school year. The defendants were the school principal, the superintendant, and the school board. The premise for the suit and subsequent appeal is that they were denied the education that was afforded other students with similar abilities, because they were not promoted to the third grade. Only one student out of the twenty-three students in the class was advanced to the third grade. The plaintiffs argue that when they were not allowed to progress to the next grade, the completion of their education would be prolonged, and they would be saddled with the stigma of failure. The defendants assert that the students did not demonstrate mastery of reading at the necessary level on the Ginn Reading Series, and could not be promoted in light of the reading deficits. The plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not display skills on the test, but they claim they could read at the required level. The plaintiffs sought $25,000 each and an injunction against the school system from further impeding their education.

__ Decision and Rationale __ The defendants moved to have the case dismissed, but the district court denied the motion. Just before the trial and without prompting, the district court changed its position and dismissed the case on the grounds that the federal government should allow the state to settle these matters. The plaintiffs appealed the case. The Court of Appeals decision was to uphold the district court’s dismissal of this case and defer the judgment of student advancement to the education system within each state. Their contention was that resolving this for the state would wrongfully increase governmental presence in the academic environment.

__ Impact on education __ This decision leaves the assessment of student proficiency up the experts in the field of education rather than lawmakers. If the verdict had been in favor of the plaintiffs, parents could put all of the responsibility on teachers and relieve students of personal accountability in their own learning. In essence, the education system could be taken hostage by parents and students, and true progress would be stunted.

__ Quiz question __ Who is responsible for ensuring that all children have equal opportunity to a good education? a. State government b. Federal government c. Local government

review done independently by Eileen Boyd